In message , at 11:43:39 on Sun, 18 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:32:16 on Thu, 15 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:

Why then did you bring up the topic? "it is ... on a closed track bed".

because I missed out, "presumably..."

Do you never make mistakes?

The mistake of claiming I'd brought up the subject (of closed track
beds) is a bit fundamental.

I didn't say that you brought it up

Who wrote "why then did you bring up the topic?"

it was just my suggestion of what route would be followed, but whether
it was a closed track bed or new build was incidental to my point

I really don't know why you made an issue of it (my original mistake)

Because you pile on more mistakes with every posting, it's become
ridiculous.

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.

I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section

It would be more helpful if you used the same terms as everyone
else, especially Network Rail.

and how am I supposed to know what these terms are?

do you really expect me to go an plough through a pile of someone
else's documents just to make a small point?

It's not a small point. It's on the front page of the East-West Rail
website, and has featured in numerous news articles this year when the
preferred *central* corridor was announced.

I don't need to go to a web site to see whether the route is on a
"improved" line already in situ or new build (where on old track bet or
new alignment). I know that from my knowledge fop the UK rail network.

We've moved on, to trying to get you to realise it's the
"West/Central/Eastern" terminology that you are mistaken about.

As well as myself reminding you at least twice, earlier in the thread.

The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in
situ freight line and the Eastern Section is the part East of
Bedford that is currently open fields (or whatever). You can put
the bit in the middle in whichever section you like.

It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely
service pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably
terminating at} MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.

The service pattern used for the latest (2016) study is:

1 train per hour (tph) London Paddington - Oxford - Cambridge semi-fast

1 tph Bletchley - Cambridge semi-fast; and

1 tph Bristol - Cambridge, with alternate trains extended to
Norwich or Ipswich.

Plus optionally 1 tph Bournemouth - Manchester (currently
-Oxford-Banbury) diverted via Bletchley, Bicester and WCML.

and what about the Oxford to Marylebone and the long proposed
Aylesbury to MK services, that will also use the line?

None of those use the line from Bedford to Cambridge (which is the
one whose business case is currently being examined by TPTB).

At the time of your intervention I wasn't discussing the business case
for the extension to Cambridge in isolation. I was discussing it in
the context of the use of a privately operated special purpose vehicle
(or whatever it is called) for the development, and AFAIA that proposal
is for the complete line to Oxford.

AFAIA it's just for the Bedford-Cambridge section.

Hence the reason why my use of East and West refers to parts of that
complete line.

THE COMPLETE LINE IS OXFORD TO THE COAST

The West part being the part that is, I believe, currently funded and
the East the part that is not.

THE EASTERN PART IS ALREADY BUILT. IT'S FROM CAMBRIDGE TO THE COAST.

If you changed the thread of some sub-set of that you should have made
it clearer, because I didn't notice

I GIVE UP. YOU'VE BEEN TOLD THIS STUFF OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
--
Roland Perry